Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 14:30:25 07/12/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 12, 2002 at 17:07:56, Dann Corbit wrote: >On July 12, 2002 at 16:37:19, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>On July 12, 2002 at 16:29:18, Dann Corbit wrote: >> >>>On July 12, 2002 at 16:25:48, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>>[snip] >>>>If you leave maths and come back to chess, oops, the difficulties, deeper search >>>>depth or not, do never stop IMO. Ed always was thinking the same. He never >>>>believed in the doubling enthusiasm, and for good reasons. >>> >>>Are you sure that you are interpreting Ed correctly? >> >>Smile. I'm not officially introduced. But I'm sure Ed will comment on our >>debate. BTW Ed never was impressed by the mere hardware ballyhoo of DBII. He >>always asked for the games. But until now we don't have 'em. >> >>> >>>By the time you have made a 60 ply search, if you have 15 plys of null move >>>reduction, you will still see 45 plies full width. That will crush any human >>>and play chess that we simply cannot imagine. >> >>I do not aggree. If you are talking about 'any' human. Some humans will always >>be much more clever than a machine. Taking the actual paradigm of computerchess. >>Of course that may change in the future - hopefully. :) > >I think you are wrong, but there can be no proof until far into the future. > >Checkers (for instance) is nearly solved. With the openings databases and >endgame databases, they have nearly met in the middle. Eventually (maybe 10,000 >years into from now) computers will have (for all practical purposes) solve the >game. All what I said is that as long it is NOT solved, there will always be a solution to find some hole in the machine's play. That is all I said. That is by definition _not_ false but true. I think that this little chance was also the motivation for this great player who was unbeatable World Champ before he died during or shortly after a match. It's a typical human situation. The challenge of the "impossible". I think we need some ethics for the computer side to deal with the situation. Because it's a terrible tension for the challenger and his 'psyche'. But I won't repeat my critic against IBM/DBteam since it's well known and could be found in the archives. Rolf Tueschen
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.